Tuesday, April 17, 2012

My Son's Name Changed

Not only did the FBI or U.S. Attorney illegally apply for a Social Security number for my son, in April 2008, when they did not have authority to do so and knowing I had specifically had it revoked (not rescinded), now I have found out my son's name has been changed as well.

My aunt wrote back as if it's no big deal, saying "His last name would have changed if you had been married anyway."

That is not true. I was never taking a different name for myself. Ever. And I never will. Ever.

Garrett is a good name and any smear to my name is a smear--it doesn't change the truth of who I am or the fact that this is a good name.

Cameo Pardo? Never. Cameo is pardoned? That would never have happened, in a million years. Like I am going to trade in "brave spear" for "pardoned".

My son's name never would have changed and any change now is null and void. It's Garrett. It is Garrett and it will always be Garrett.

If I had wanted to change other parts of his name, that would have been up to me and at my discretion. No one has a right to take a dog tag for my son, and a different name.

My son is not U.S. property, he is not a soldier, and he is not owned by this government.

He is property that belongs to me. Those property rights have not been voluntarily waived. If it sounds odd to some to refer to property, I do so because that is how a child is viewed in the eyes of the law--as property.

The fundamental right to have ones own child is fundamental because it has always been under the constitutional provision of "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Liberty has been construed as what one has when ones property is free and not withheld from them. One retains liberty when ones property rights are safe and secure and they are not falsely imprisoned or their properties are not withheld from them.

And children historically follow, by law, as "property". So the right to ones children is not a substantial right or a variable. It is a fundamental right that cannot be deprived by shoddy counsel or illegal restraint. It is interpreted this way, by case law:


The right to guardianship of one's children, is akin to right to property, akin to liberty, guaranteed by law to citizens through the inalienable rights secured by BLOOD in The Constitution.

Do we need more blood and another Civil War?

It's looking like there hasn't been enough bloodshed over protecting the Constitution because some Judges and FBI think they are better than all the people who have died to protect this guarantee.

No comments: